For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

[dantech]

A person can believe in Martin Luther King Jr. without being black or a Baptist. A person can believe in Gandhi without being a Hindu. Why can’t a person believe in Jesus without being a Jew?

First, you can't chose to be Black so your argument doesn't make much sense to begin with.
Say you could be Black by choice... Believing in MLK Jr. basically means believing in his message, liking it, and going as far as preaching it to all your surroundings as well as learning to live by his code.

Belief in Jesus is believing in his message and liking it as well. But it's also so much more. It's about being saved from eternal hell... It's about him being the perfect example of how humans around the world should be acting to please God, the one and only King of the universe and of all creation (in the believers' eyes)

So by believing in Jesus and his message, the only logical way to interpret his message would be to be as much like him as you could be.
You can't be Black by choice, you can however be Jewish by choice. If you truly believe Jesus to be as perfect as everyone makes him out to be, it only seems logical to want to be like him.

If I want to be the best basketball player in the world, I'd start watching film of all the greatest players and try to replicate all their training sessions, their moves, their attitude as much as I could. That would be the logical way of doing things to try and become like them.

 

[dantech]

I’ll answer it from my own perspective. I am not Jewish. All 613 laws in the Torah are binding to Jews only. Only 7 of the 613 laws in the Torah are binding to non-Jews. These 7 laws are known as the “Noahide Laws”. The Noahide Laws are binding to all of mankind. I interpret the canonical Gospels as a concise allegorical representation of the Torah, a sort of Midrash. The Jesus in these gospels is portrayed as the Israel that never went astray. This Jesus is God’s son, just as Israel is God’s son. The Jesus in these gospels points his readers back to the Torah. Since I’m not Jewish I’m directed to the 7 Noahide Laws. Jews on the other hand are directed to the entire 613 laws. The purpose of the 7 laws is to lead us to God. The additional laws the Jews have gives them identity. It defines who they are, where they came from and there hope. The fulfillment of the law is to be God centered. To put it another way, to embrace God. I do not believe in any virgin birth or dead people coming back to life, but if Jesus really turned water into wine, then he is most definitely invited to my next party. Do I believe in the Torah? I’m not sure if I understand it all, not yet anyway.

So I'll ask you a question that I asked plenty of others and still haven't gotten a clear response.

The first converts to Christianity were mostly originally Jewish. And the title of "Christianity" didn't exist, did it? So those Jews who started following Jesus and stopped celebrating the Sabbath on the 7th day, stopped eating Kosher, etc... Were they in the wrong? Are they saved because they had faith in Jesus? Or are they gravely mistaking because the 613 laws were indeed binding to them?

 

[dantech]

Thinking... the problem is logistical. I brought this up before, that if someone starts following all of the Torah, then I think that makes them Jewish or nearly so. (Shermana disagreed don't know on what basis)

Well, it depends. The person becomes Jewish in whose perspective? They might feel Jewish, but Jews might not accept the person as Jewish unless this person has a Jewish mother, or this person has gone through a formal conversion to Judaism. Then there are the different denominations of Jews. Orthodox Jews will not accept a person who has gone through a conversion, perhaps through the reform movement, yet still believes in Christ (convert to messianic Judaism). I say convert because a person born of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of what he/she believes in, and regardless of what religion he/she thinks she belongs to. This of course is only in Judaism's perspective.

Jesus appeared to be interested in the entire world, and I don't think his goal was to make everyone Jewish. It goes back to the question of what his death was supposed to be for, which I was discussing on another thread.

The point I was making is that I don't believe it matters what he wanted. Trinity aside, the only thing that's important is what God wants. Now if you believe God has appointed Jesus to be the Messiah, and therefore Jesus is the most righteous person on earth, then your goal should be to try and be like him, at least logically speaking.

I wouldn't want to establish levels of Jewishness within the Jewish world by making some people partly Jewish. That seems counter to his mission. I understand your logical argument, but the practical logistical question is "Now, what is to be done with all of these Christians?" I don't think we're supposed to all become Jewish. Seriously you'd be overrun.

I don't believe one bit that all Christians should become Jewish. To us Jews, a Christian can be perfectly righteous by following the 7 Noahide Laws.
I simply am trying to understand how Christianity has become what it is today when you take all the arguments I made in this thread into perspective.



I hadn't heard this point of view before. I don't have the same view as Oatmeal. Its again not logical but practical-logistical, kind of timey wimey as I explain below. The answer to your question lies in the basis of Christianity.

I'm not trying to correct you on anything. The explanation is not strictly logical, because Christianity literally is supposed to be a bubble-universe to Judaism. You are expecting Elijah to come. Early Christians excepted that there would be two Elijahs, first a type and shadow -- John the Baptist --- followed by the real one later or not (not sure). These two are counterparts within two universes.

Ok, great. Early Christians believe two Elijahs will come. How did they get to this conclusion? To me, it all seems like scripture is being manipulated to justify passed history, rather than understanding what the future holds. These same "Early Christians" believed one Elijah would come to announce the arrival of the Messiah until Jesus came. When Jesus failed to accomplish all the other prophecies within his lifetime, the believers started changing what they "understand" to make it seem like they're still okay... I think I'm having trouble explaining myself, so let me know if you don't understand what I'm saying.

Jesus and all of his followers exist in a universe apart which is termed a new creation. Within that universe the law is fulfilled in a future sense, as in its going to be fulfilled. Outside of that universe it has not been fulfilled yet. You may have picked up on passages in the NT if you read it where it says Jesus is the 'Author and finisher' and others that call him 'Alpha and omega'. This new universe is what its talking about. *If you think your head hurts from hearing me explain it, believe me my head hurts much more.* Jesus preached 'The kingdom of God has arrived!' which in his universe it had, but his universe was in the future or in some kind of other place, meanwhile literal Israel was oppressed by Rome.

Again, all great theories. But none of it is supported by scripture that exist PRIOR to Jesus. It's easy to write scripture that will support passed history. Try writing scripture that will support future events.

Out of this arises all the various forms of Christianity throughout the last two eons, the more recent ones trying to reconstruct Christianity (and hence also Judaism) from scratch. I would say the law has not been fulfilled literally, but it has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus for the faithful since they will ultimately triumph through love! You, as a modern Jewish person, could think of the Christian new creation of Jesus as a quantum fluctuation trying to gain mass. Its a not that is trying to become.

Again, love is a great thing. Please show me scripture that says that love can triumph over other laws. Show me scripture that says Kosher is no longer needed if you are filled with love. This is my biggest issue. It always comes back to : "I mostly agree with you about everything, but I still believe that Jesus has fulfilled the law, or will do so in the future."
If he did fulfill it, show me that it can indeed be fulfilled. If he will, then explain to me why there was no need for early Christians who were actually Jewish to not observe the Sabbath on the 7th day.

 

[Shermana]

So I'll ask you a question that I asked plenty of others and still haven't gotten a clear response.

The first converts to Christianity were mostly originally Jewish. And the title of "Christianity" didn't exist, did it? So those Jews who started following Jesus and stopped celebrating the Sabbath on the 7th day, stopped eating Kosher, etc... Were they in the wrong? Are they saved because they had faith in Jesus? Or are they gravely mistaking because the 613 laws were indeed binding to them?

I personally don't think any (beyond a token few singled out rebels at least) Jewish Christians stopped celebrating Sabbath and eating Kosher until MANY centuries later when there were no more visible traces of the Nazarenes and it was just a few, a tiny few Jews who decided to join the orthodox church. Until then though, almost all Jewish Christians were in the Law-obedient sects like the Ebionites and Nazarenes. The Church Fathers noticeably expressed their anger at the Jewish Christians, the "Judaizers" for the first few centuries.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Let me reprint your first question to help me stay on track:

"it is pretty clear that Jesus agrees that the Old Testament is the true word of God....But if that is true, how is it that Christians don't follow all the laws that the Jews do. How is it that they don't do the Sabbath, that they don't keep Kosher, or let the earth rest every 7 years?" -- Dantech

You follow this more recently with

'Again, love is a great thing. Please show me scripture that says that love can triumph over other laws. Show me scripture that says Kosher is no longer needed if you are filled with love. This is my biggest issue. It always comes back to : "I mostly agree with you about everything, but....."' --Dantech

Again, all great theories. But none of it is supported by scripture that exist PRIOR to Jesus. It's easy to write scripture that will support passed history. Try writing scripture that will support future events.--Dantech

First I think early Christian Jews kept the Mosaic law. I may have overlooked that in your original question. For my pleasure I assume they did keep it. It would be too ambitious for me to try and explain why they didn't if that was the case, but I can discuss the much easier issue the 'Love triumphing over the law' idea. The triumph of the faithful isn't love triumphing over Moses law, and that is not what I meant by 'The faithful will triumph'. The real triumph is not the removal of Moses laws but the elevation of gentiles out of Noah's covenant into a better one. For the moment I will only mention Genesis 8:22.

I think that there is still room to ponder how love can eventually triumph over the necessity of laws for all people in general. No harm in thinking about it, and when it comes to Noah's laws there could be an end to those. For whatever reason, Genesis provides a condition under which Noah's covenant could end (Gen 8:22), and that is 'As long as the Earth endures'. This is your first indication that Noah's laws aren't an ideal. For Christians the Earth didn't endure, particularly if you accept that the country of Israel and its temple was destroyed by the Romans. Excluding that, the Earth ended for Christians metaphorically when a new creation began in Jesus own ministry, whose ministry replaced Noah's not Moses, and it was the 'Noahic' not the 'Mosaic' laws when came to an end there. (You won't find most Christian scholars speaking this way, but you asked what I think and for me to explain my own thoughts.) This was the 'Fulfillment of the Law' to which Jesus referred -- the end goal of every Jew's faith was after all to bless the entire world.

The basis for Christianity then is an end to Noahic law, not Mosaic law, an elevation of Gentiles above bare minimums of behavior into loving behavior. This law of seven commands was given to Gentiles, because we had to be schooled from barbarism. That was the reasoning I think in Noah's covenant. Jews had and have a dynamic law that did and does a lot more than that. Jews aren't just 'better than barbaric' they are progressives! Gentiles didn't get the benefit of your laws or of membership in your clan. Well, how can there be such an uneven arrangement in which you Jews are favored above everyone else? The argument of the NT authors is it was necessarily an uneven arrangement for a period of time. It was necessary for a time but not for all time, and I think you'd agree that you would want the world to improve rather than stay stagnant and barely above barbaric levels. That is why Christianity took off with support of the local Jews. Enter Jesus new creation and exit Noah's very basic covenant of peace with the assumption that Jesus new creation is better. This was the Catholic faith in which gentiles were newly considered in a better class than before.

 

[Shermana]

The basis for Christianity then is an end to Noahic law, not Mosaic law, an elevation of Gentiles above bare minimums of behavior into loving behavior.

That's basically what I'm saying, Christianity, if adopted by gentiles, is for gentiles to live like Israelites. And that was the thought of the Jerusalem Church well before the alleged Acts 15 episode (which many scholars think was interpolated).

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's basically what I'm saying, Christianity, if adopted by gentiles, is for gentiles to live like Israelites. And that was the thought of the Jerusalem Church well before the alleged Acts 15 episode (which many scholars think was interpolated).

That helps me to understand your position better. You call yourself Ebionite. Does that mean that there are Ebionite books you like to quote from?

 

[Shermana]

That helps me to understand your position better. You call yourself Ebionite. Does that mean that there are Ebionite books you like to quote from?

I don't really call myself Ebionite per se, but Zardoz does. There is too much that goes with the word, such as they are heavily associated with the Essene ideas of Vegetarianism and no blood sacrifices, but I think that was probably just a faction of them. I prefer the term "Nazarene" or "Neo Nazarene", even if its a stretch since we don't know everything about them, to differentiate myself from the other "Messianic Jewish" concepts.

There are no Ebionite books per se either, however, I do think there is something to the fact that their Book of Matthew starts at Chapter 3, as I agree with their belief that there was no Virgin Birth, and this concept and the verses used to promote the idea were added later.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't really call myself Ebionite per se, but Zardoz does. There is too much that goes with the word, such as they are heavily associated with the Essene ideas of Vegetarianism and no blood sacrifices, but I think that was probably just a faction of them. I prefer the term "Nazarene" or "Neo Nazarene", even if its a stretch since we don't know everything about them, to differentiate myself from the other "Messianic Jewish" concepts.

New related topic. You're of the opinion that unless people keep the Torah laws themselves they will forget them and won't internalize them, so its not enough (in your opinion) that one group of people keeps them for everyone else such as Jews keeping them for all of the Old-Nazarenes? (Don't use Neo in your name.) I suppose that seems like a strange idea to you having a group keep the laws for others, but don't Jews already live that way, since the women don't keep so many laws as the men? The women do get jealous of the men over this sometimes, but that is still the way they do it. They also put the women on one side of the synogogue and the men on the other so I hear.

There are no Ebionite books per se either, however, I do think there is something to the fact that their Book of Matthew starts at Chapter 3, as I agree with their belief that there was no Virgin Birth, and this concept and the verses used to promote the idea were added later.

My interests are in helping current Christians to have better lives, so I could care less about whether Matthew's chapters 1 & 2 were late additions. On the other hand I have not yet finalized what I think though about Matthews point about 3 * 14 generations, and maybe there are some important things nestled in his genealogies. I don't like simply chopping off sections of books, just as I don't like chopping off everything Paul says just because some of it may be corrupt. If a person has a grasp of Torah they should be able to ferret out the good from the bad for themselves. Otherwise it seems like the faith would be questionable. It should yield responsible adults.

 

[Shermana]

No one can keep the laws for someone else.

If I abstain from pork, that doesn't give anyone else an excuse to chow down on bacon.

If I stay home and rest on Friday night, that doesn't give anyone an excuse to go work or party in a way that involves lots of energy exertion and electricity and fire.

Now I'm not sure what it means to be a "light to the nations", but I do know that active prosleytzation was possibly common in the Roman days, and it may be my responsibility, and what Jews are SUPPOSED to do, to bring others to believe in the Torah, beyond just the so-called "Noahide Laws" (which are a later development in terms of concept).

The Jews keeping Torah doesn't save the rest of the world or something like that, there may be something Talmudic about that but it's certainly not scriptural.

If you want to become close to God, you obey the Torah as an individual. No one does it for you.

If a person has a grasp of Torah they should be able to ferret out the good from the bad for themselves.

Indeed, which is why it seems a lot of Ethnically Jewish Messianics tend to throw Paul out the window, for good reason, whereas those who already reject Torah seem to adopt him without question.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No one can keep the laws for someone else.

Lets except that and move on. So it goes back to the question of why should gentiles keep the Torah and whether all gentiles would be better off that way. I don't want to debate that and am not prepared to do so at this time though its related to the topic of the thread.

If I abstain from pork, that doesn't give anyone else an excuse to chow down on bacon.

It brings up the question of separation. If I abstain from pork but don't know why I abstain from pork, then what really is the point of it? My theory is that this is one of the laws of separation that separate Jews from everyone else, because nobody seems to know what this law is for except for that separation principle (which probably applies to all of the laws). My theory on shellfish is blah blah blah, but the text doesn't say why not to eat it. I'd be avoiding shellfish because why? Because then I couldn't invite Jewish people to dinner I guess?

If I stay home and rest on Friday night, that doesn't give anyone an excuse to go work or party in a way that involves lots of energy exertion and electricity and fire.

You are remembering the seventh day to keep it 'Holy' as the English translation calls it, but gentiles were never commanded to do that. Its part of a Jewish covenant, so how does someone keeping this law not consider themselves Jewish or partially so? Do they become para-Jewish, quasi-Jewish, secretly Jewish?

If you want to become close to God, you obey the Torah as an individual. No one does it for you.

And yet its not possible to keep the Torah all by yourself. You see there are many considerations.

 

[Shermana]

The text says that eating shellfish and pork "defiles" you. Now many Rabbis and Pastors think the word "Defiles" simply means you are "ceremonially unclean", but we don't know. I think it defiles your soul as it reduces its glory, sullies it, stains it, makes you less holy, makes you filthy, makes you less in touch with the Spiritual world, and besides the fact that it's unhealthy if not poisonous.

The question is, do you want to live according to a way that God set aside for his chosen people or not. If you don't want to, that's fine, you weren't meant to probably. You were not meant to live as the people on the top of the spiritual ladder, because you prefer your conveniences and "gentile living" over the idea of spiritual advancement and holiness. Is there any shame in that? That's up to the individual to decide.

Now if a Christian claims he is following Christ, but defies what Christ taught, such as breaking the Law, using one theological excuse or another, or one faulty interpretation of the text or another, that's a whole different story. Those are the people who Christ will assuredly reject as "Doers of Lawlessness". So if a gentile believes that being "Christian" means being a part of the "New Covenant", then it means he should obey the Law that "Israel and Judah" were to follow for that "New Covenant" that was only for the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel".

Otherwise, as I see it, it's an insult to God and Jesus to claim you follow their will when you abjectly reject it, and I think it's quite clear why Christians have been facing nonstop calamity and disaster over the years, and why their prayers are rarely if ever answered.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I hear what you are saying, and there are some very terrible calamities out there, too. I will remember your points!

 

[Pegg]

The text says that eating shellfish and pork "defiles" you. Now many Rabbis and Pastors think the word "Defiles" simply means you are "ceremonially unclean", but we don't know. I think it defiles your soul as it reduces its glory, sullies it, stains it, makes you less holy, makes you filthy, makes you less in touch with the Spiritual world, and besides the fact that it's unhealthy if not poisonous.

eating a piece of fruit defiled Adam and Eve.

Perhaps the principle here is not 'what' is eaten, but the fact that disobedience has occurred?

 

[roger1440]

So I'll ask you a question that I asked plenty of others and still haven't gotten a clear response.

The first converts to Christianity were mostly originally Jewish. And the title of "Christianity" didn't exist, did it? So those Jews who started following Jesus and stopped celebrating the Sabbath on the 7th day, stopped eating Kosher, etc... Were they in the wrong? Are they saved because they had faith in Jesus? Or are they gravely mistaking because the 613 laws were indeed binding to them?

It is difficult to figure out how exactly Christianity started. Very few documents have survived from that time period. All we have to work with is bits and pieces of a puzzle. It’s like putting together a puzzle when we don’t know what the original picture looked like. When we add the so called “heretical” gospels and letters it’s even more confusing. Since these other writings are part of early Christianity they must be included to figure out Christianity’s roots. Because of the Jewishness of Jesus and his message Christianity must have started within Judaism. It is highly unlikely Gentiles would have used Jewish theology to create their own God. The very first Christians were Jews. They would have been a small sect of Jews. I’m convinced the Jesus story started as allegory. As the story left the time and place it had originated from the story slowly became literalized. The story had branched into many directions. Two of its branches had merged into the New Testament. If I am right, it would explain why the Apostle Paul knew nothing about the living Jesus. Paul’s Jesus is different than that of the canonical Gospels. It would also explain why the theology of Paul does not match the theology of the canonical Gospels. The Jesus of the canonical Gospels points his readers to the Torah. Paul on the other hand tells his readers to throw the Torah away. Pardon the pun, but I do not trust the Book of Acts as gospel.

I suspect all four of the canonical Gospels were completed after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The destruction of the Temple gave the Jesus story tremendous momentum for the completion of the canonical Gospels. The Temple was the center of Judaism. After the Temple was gone a small sect of Jews rethought what was meant to be a Jew. The Jesus of the canonical Gospels had the answer. All Jesus did was point to the Torah. Most modern day Jews, Christians and scholars do not understand the message of the Jesus in the canonical Gospels. These gospels were meant for Jews not Gentiles.

 

[dantech]

It is difficult to figure out how exactly Christianity started. Very few documents have survived from that time period. All we have to work with is bits and pieces of a puzzle. It’s like putting together a puzzle when we don’t know what the original picture looked like. When we add the so called “heretical” gospels and letters it’s even more confusing. Since these other writings are part of early Christianity they must be included to figure out Christianity’s roots. Because of the Jewishness of Jesus and his message Christianity must have started within Judaism. It is highly unlikely Gentiles would have used Jewish theology to create their own God. The very first Christians were Jews. They would have been a small sect of Jews. I’m convinced the Jesus story started as allegory. As the story left the time and place it had originated from the story slowly became literalized. The story had branched into many directions. Two of its branches had merged into the New Testament. If I am right, it would explain why the Apostle Paul knew nothing about the living Jesus. Paul’s Jesus is different than that of the canonical Gospels. It would also explain why the theology of Paul does not match the theology of the canonical Gospels. The Jesus of the canonical Gospels points his readers to the Torah. Paul on the other hand tells his readers to throw the Torah away. Pardon the pun, but I do not trust the Book of Acts as gospel.

I suspect all four of the canonical Gospels were completed after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The destruction of the Temple gave the Jesus story tremendous momentum for the completion of the canonical Gospels. The Temple was the center of Judaism. After the Temple was gone a small sect of Jews rethought what was meant to be a Jew. The Jesus of the canonical Gospels had the answer. All Jesus did was point to the Torah. Most modern day Jews, Christians and scholars do not understand the message of the Jesus in the canonical Gospels. These gospels were meant for Jews not Gentiles.

Are you saying that had Jews actually understood Jesus' teachings, there'd be no Christians today? Just Jews?

 

[roger1440]

Are you saying that had Jews actually understood Jesus' teachings, there'd be no Christians today? Just Jews?

Yeah, the Gentiles twisted the message. Reread the gospel of Mathew. Read it from a 1st century Jewish perspective after the destruction of the Temple. It reads differently. Jesus is Israel.

 

[roger1440]

Are you saying that had Jews actually understood Jesus' teachings, there'd be no Christians today? Just Jews?

The sacrifice of Jesus is a sacrifice ALL Jews are required to do. The Torah calls all Jews to sacrifice there will for the will of God. In doing so, they are holy just as God is holy. God’s truly first born. Simple message, LOL. It was never about worshiping a dead Jew.

 

[dantech]

The sacrifice of Jesus is a sacrifice ALL Jews are required to do. The Torah calls all Jews to sacrifice there will for the will of God. In doing so, they are holy just as God is holy. God’s truly first born. Simple message, LOL. It was never about worshiping a dead Jew.

Can you show me in scripture where in the Torah it says that all Jews are to sacrifice themselves, as Jesus did? Or is that not what you meant?

 

[dantech]

Yeah, the Gentiles twisted the message. Reread the gospel of Mathew. Read it from a 1st century Jewish perspective after the destruction of the Temple. It reads differently. Jesus is Israel.

So was Jesus the Messiah? Or just a very righteous Jew looking to preach to his surroundings how he believed Jews should be acting?